Airparks; Living On The Beaten Path?

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:



Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made in
the fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history
as the first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a
famous pic of that flight with the airplane taking off at an
absolutely insane angle of climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.


Bertie

I ran into that while looikng for info on the undercarriage, here's
one of the links:
http://www.geocities.com/~planes/cfacts/jato.htm

Pretty cool accessory, eh? I flew a twin beech that had them as an
emergency engine failure provision, but we didn't use them. It upped the
max take off weight. They'd be a hoot on a light single like an Ercouple
though!


Bertie

"RST Engineering" wrote in news:13tessrl82qp6b4
@news.supernews.com:

Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT
go
down to see what you have to say?


























































nope, that's completely beyond me.


Bertie

" wrote in
:

On Mar 11, 9:59*pm, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in
messagenews:fr7hil$ah5$1@blackhe
licopter.databasix.com...



"Blueskies" wrote in
.net:

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
. ..

Ercoupe 415, 85 hp, cruise ~110 mph

(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/airc...tions/ercoupe/
1949

-ercoupe-415-g.html) Luscombe 8F, 90 hp, cruise ~95 mph

(http://www.planeandpilotmag.com/airc...tions/luscombe
/194

6-luscombe-8a.html) Rearwin Sportster '8500', 85 hp, cruise ~103
mph
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%
20performance/rearwin/Rearwi
n%20

Sportster.htm) Rearwin Speedster '6000C', 95 hp, cruise ~120 mph
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%
20performance/rearwin/Rearwi
n%20

Speedster.htm) Taylorcraft BC-12D, 65 hp, 90-100 mph
(http://www.pilotfriend.com/aircraft%
20performance/Taylorcraft.ht
m)

That was fun. T cart is T-craft?

I've flown all of these airplanes except the Speedster, though I
did talk to one of the Rearwin Family about buying the first
production airplane at one time. I think it might still be for
sale, but the price is big and it needs complete restoration.
It's Cirrus powered one. Th eMenasco powered airplane cruised at
140 plus IIRC.

Those figures are rubbish for the Luscombe and the Ercoupe in
particular. All the foloowing figures are in MPH.
The Ercoupe will do about 95 to 100 on an 85 and the Luscombe
will cruise an honest 100 on a 65 and over 110 with an 85. The
T-cart will do 95mph with an A -65 ( My first airplane was a
T-cart) The Sporster came with a large variety of HPs depending
and even the 60 HP one wil cruise at over 90 on a good day. a 90
HP Sporster is a fine airplane, BTW. BTW, the luscombe still
holds the closed course record for a production airplane in it's
class 69 years after it set the record. 129 mph, IIRC. That was
an A-65 posered one BTW.

Then there are airplanes like the Jodel 1040. with an O-200 it
will lift three 200 lb guys out of an 1100 foot strip with six
hours endurance and cruise at 120 mph. A Jodel D-12 will do over
100 with an A-65 and get out of a 600 foot long strip with two
guys on board. The Ercoupe was a good performer, but it wasn't
the best at anything.

Bertie

We've got an old guy (as if I'm not) here who has 3 1/2 coupes,
and he does like them. I was quoting him on the performance
numbers, so I can't say from personal experience. He also has a
twister (raced it at Cleveland and Reno!) in his hanger alongside
the meyers 200. He likes flying circles around the cessners
tho'...

So many airplanes, so little time...what is a T-cart? Your numbers
seem to match up on that line...

Oh sorry, nickname for a Taylorcraft. Mine was a BF 65 but had a
continental in it. Lovely little airplane. It's just been restored
by th
e
present owner and is still flying at the age of 69.

I have factory figures for the airplane ( Original press
publications fr
om
the thirties for each)
Ercoupe 415-C A-65 powered:
cruise @ 80% 95, initial ROC 600fpm stall 37
And the postwar airplane with the 85
cruise @75% 100 mph stall 48 (?!!) initial ROC 750 FPM.

I have no idea why the stal speed jumped so much, bu tI suspect
they didn't
correct indicated on the earlier airplane. 48 sounds high for a
wing loading that low as well, but such were the vagaries of
published figure
s.
Good thing they're more honest these days, eh? *

The 415-E with the C-85 and an uppped gross weight they say will do
110
at
80%, which is definitely not true of any I know of, but it's climb
has gone
down to 550 FPM. Mostly due to the increased gross of 1400 over the
earlier
machine's gross of 1180. Electrics and all that..
I forgot about the Culver Cadet, of course, which is published at
120 cruise with an A-75. AFAIK, this was an honest figure for the
airplane, but
I've never flown one. And the figures for the aforementioned
Bellanca Junior with just about any of the available 90 horse
engines was from 12
0
to 126 mph. An that was a three seater.
Most of the 90 horse monocoupes would have eaten it for breakfast
as wel
l.

Some Ercoupe trivia has to include the twin fuselage someone made
in the

fifties as an airshow curiosity and it holds a place in history as
the first aircraft to have a JATO bottle installed. There's a
famous pic of that flight with the airplane taking off at an
absolutely insane angle o
f
climb.I'm sure it's on the net somewhere.

Bertie

I ran into that while looikng for info on the undercarriage, here's
one of

the links:http://www.geocities.com/~planes/cfacts/jato.htm

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That angle of climb doesn't look insane to me. hell, my Zenith 801
looks like that on an off day...There must be another pic showing it
performing at alot higher climb angle.

That's not the pic I was thinking of, but it's about the same angle
IIRC. That's very steep for an Ercoupe. that's probably a 65 horse one
as well.


Bertie

On Mar 12, 1:09 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Do you idiots NOT understand that if you do NOT snip that we will NOT go
down to see what you have to say?

Jim

I'm looking for the example that you didn't include....that's super
snipping.

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 01:25:34 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:

"WJRFlyBoy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 21:35:47 GMT, Vaughn Simon wrote:

I missed making my point. It was the nearness of the houses (aircraft
irregardless). Sorry.

On a regular basis, I have cars zipping by not two carlengths from my
bedroom, some of them faster than a landing Aircoupe. Not only that, I live at
the dangerous end of a "T" intersection. If one car ran that stop sign...

Anyhow, been 20 years now in this same house and no trouble.

Vaughn

I don't know what to say, Vaughn except Best Of Luck
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:02:33 -0400, Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

I used to live near the end of Greenfield Rd. at 14 Mile Rd. in Birmingham
MI. In the Google maps "street view":

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=greenfield+rd.+and+14+mi le+rd.+Birmingham+MI&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.875284,80.332031&ie=UTF8&ll=42.5 35437,-83.204527&spn=0.007004,0.02665&z=16&layer=c&cbll=4 2.53192,-83.20441&cbp=1,0,,0,5you can see the BIG rock that the guy who lived across from the end ofGreenfield set in his front yard after the _second_ time that a car ended upin his bedroom...I'd rather live next to a runway myself...-

I have seen that visiting up there many times. lol
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 13:50:19 GMT, news.chi.sbcglobal.net wrote:

Logic would dictate that pilots who live right next to their airplanes
probably fly more than those who have to drive an hour or so to an airport.

And I would think that those who fly more are probably more proficient that
their less-fortunate brothers/sisters.

Which would make me think that living in an air park would probably be
somewhat safer than living next to a typical GA airport...

I can buy into that somewhat.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:09:09 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

When my wife and I were looking for a place to live, I bought the books
on airparks and easily separated out the places where we DIDN'T want to
live:

1.Those out in the boondocks where you have to drive an hour to get a
loaf of bread or a can of paint.

2. Those too small to defend themselves when the neighboring Philistines
start campaigning against the airpark.
3. Anything on wells/septic tanks.
4. Any where the residents don't OWN the runway.

Reasoning here?

5. No runway lights or who prohibit night operations (Lakeway comes to
mind).
6. Those with poor approaches.
7. Those with too many other restrictions (Ocean Reef comes to mind).
8. Too far from the beach. (Arizona is mostly beach, but the water is a
bit far away.)

What do you think about Captiva?
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:58:19 GMT, Blueskies wrote:

wrote in message ...
On Mar 10, 6:05 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:
On Sun, 9 Mar 2008 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
If that bothers you don't think of landing at some of our back country
strips out here in the west. You would have a heart attack at most of
them trying to thread the needle of trees, cliffs, creeks, stumps,
critters, etc.......

Ben
www.haaspowerair.com
N801BH

It's a little different when you miss a landing a kill a few pines v.s. the
neighbor's kids.
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

The trick is to not "miss a landing"... Can you say,, Go
Around ??????????

No offense but this is like arguing with a 16 yo (not you personally) "Dad,
there is a stop sign, people STOP."
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 09:36:33 -0400, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
WJRFlyBoy wrote:

Any incidents?

Whenever you have 600 airplanes residing in a place, you are going to
have SOME incidents --ranging from groundloops to full-house "screwing
the pooch."

Let's start this over Captiva.

Planes...landing..people...mistakes..houses...too close...imminent death.

Yes?

Make sense?

????
--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!